Boeing 737 Max Recertification Testing - Finally.
Boeing recently announced intentions to increase production of the MAX family in the near future, but a friend claiming a mysterious 'inside track' just told me "Boeing is suspending production of the MAX 8."
This guy is not in aviation and is only looking to score points, so it would give me pleasure to shoot him down. Can anyone provide insight or references as to why this would be extremely improbable/impossible? Does the MAX 7 constitute the lion's share of production numbers?
REF: https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...es-2023-04-10/
This guy is not in aviation and is only looking to score points, so it would give me pleasure to shoot him down. Can anyone provide insight or references as to why this would be extremely improbable/impossible? Does the MAX 7 constitute the lion's share of production numbers?
REF: https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...es-2023-04-10/
That would be odd - the 8 is in the sweet spot. However there are orders for the other models and it would make sense to shift to making a slot in production to run a batch of them. I see a block for Southwest of 234 -7s vs 150 -8s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_by_customer as a guess at it. Unless the airlines have shifted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...es_by_customer as a guess at it. Unless the airlines have shifted.
"MAX 8 production is closed indefinitely" ... "insufficient margins in tail structure" ... "issues may be common to 9 and 10" ... "expected to break later today or as late as early next week"
Piss poor timing to be coincident with the annual shareholders meeting.
This is the rumors forum, right? /s
Piss poor timing to be coincident with the annual shareholders meeting.
This is the rumors forum, right? /s
Last edited by OttoRotate; 12th Apr 2023 at 16:18.
Thread Starter
The overwhelming majority of MAX sales have been the -8 and -9, the -7 is almost a niche market with Southwest getting the lion's share. The -10 holds some promise (very good seat mile costs), but might be a 'stretch too far' as it's badly compromised to get the extra length and seats.
So the probability of your friend knowing what he's talking about is near zero.
So the probability of your friend knowing what he's talking about is near zero.
"MAX 8 production is closed indefinitely" ... "insufficient margins in tail structure" ... "issues may be common to 9 and 10" ... "expected to break later today or as late as early next week"
Piss poor timing to be coincident with the annual shareholders meeting.
This is the rumors forum, right? /s
Piss poor timing to be coincident with the annual shareholders meeting.
This is the rumors forum, right? /s
Is this how stocks get interfered with?
Is it time for a 737 Hamsterwheel?
Thread Starter
Well, it does seem legitimate so hold your horses: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/13/boei...rts-issue.html
“We expect lower near-term 737 MAX deliveries while this required work is completed. We regret the impact that this issue will have on affected customers and are in contact with them concerning their delivery schedule,”
a friend claiming a mysterious 'inside track' just told me "Boeing is suspending production of the MAX 8.
Also, it doesn't just affect the MAX 8 - it "also affects certain 737 Max 7, the 737 8200 and P-8 planes."
So still call BS on the original claim.
It will be interesting to see if the regulators (FAA, EASA) accept that affected delivered airframes are not subject to whatever fix or inspection must be done on undelivered airframes.
Southwest said in a statement that it expects the issue to impact its delivery schedule of new Max planes and that it is discussing the details of that timeline for this year "and beyond."
The FAA said Boeing notified it of the issue and also said there is no immediate safety issue.
Groundhog Day at Renton again, it seems.
However, it strains credulity (at least, if I was the fleet manager of a carrier operating them) that delivery of new aircraft is impacted by the issue, but it is of no consequence to those already delivered. If there is to be an AD issued with timelines, it should surely have been part of the announcement. For, as ever, the announcement is more of a "Teflon shoulders" form, sticking it instantly on another company rather then Boeing, rather than describing things accurately.
Boeing said its supplier informed the company a “non-standard” manufacturing process was used on two fittings in aft fuselages.
Boeing said the problem was not an “immediate safety of flight issue and the in-service fleet can continue operating safely.“
Boeing said the problem was not an “immediate safety of flight issue and the in-service fleet can continue operating safely.“
For, as ever, the announcement is more of a "Teflon shoulders" form, sticking it instantly on another company rather then Boeing, rather than describing things accurately.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 853
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As they say, (More)
Recently, a columnist in a major newspaper wondered what the late American novelist and creator of the "New Journalism", Tom Wolfe, would have to say - were he here today - about a certain indictment of a famous person by the Manhattan DA. (No one can say for sure, but my own view is that Mr. Wolfe would never, ever, limp along verbally by using the word "narrative".) But what if the notable author were here to comment on the once, and continuing, travails,of Boeing and its strectched-to-the-breaking point 737? It's tantalizing, is it not? - and if it weren't so serious, I for one would endorse Mech Engr's order for a wheel of hamsters.
Entirely coincidentally, next week an august and esteemed (well, mostly, anyway) group of aviation attorneys are convening for a "continuing legal education" and networking conference. Actually a great deal of useful insights, contexts, and just plain updated information from the litigation and regulatory worlds will be bandied about. And one of the very most eminent of the attorneys involved in the 737 MAX legal actions is slated to participate in one of the panel discussions. Perhaps - I'm just saying it's possible - this SLF/attorney will toss out a question about how the MAX debacles prove not the validity or verities of the U.S. legal system but rather its vanities. ...... with apologies to the late, great author of, inter alia, The Right Stuff.
Oh yeah, the conference is being held in a nice European city known for nice springtimes, therein.
Entirely coincidentally, next week an august and esteemed (well, mostly, anyway) group of aviation attorneys are convening for a "continuing legal education" and networking conference. Actually a great deal of useful insights, contexts, and just plain updated information from the litigation and regulatory worlds will be bandied about. And one of the very most eminent of the attorneys involved in the 737 MAX legal actions is slated to participate in one of the panel discussions. Perhaps - I'm just saying it's possible - this SLF/attorney will toss out a question about how the MAX debacles prove not the validity or verities of the U.S. legal system but rather its vanities. ...... with apologies to the late, great author of, inter alia, The Right Stuff.
Oh yeah, the conference is being held in a nice European city known for nice springtimes, therein.
... an august and esteemed (well, mostly, anyway) group of aviation attorneys are convening for a "continuing legal education" and networking conference. Actually a great deal of useful insights, contexts, and just plain updated information from the litigation and regulatory worlds will be bandied about. And one of the very most eminent of the attorneys involved in the 737 MAX legal actions is slated to participate in one of the panel discussions. .
Yes, I know the Boeing engineer's contract probably has them riding in Coach, while the corporate lawyers are all entitled to First Class ...
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 853
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM -
Answer: Yes.
However, one of the cold, hard slaps-across-the-face that accompany being an SLF on this forum is that the actual aeronautical engineering discussions frequently leave me far behind in the not-comprehending dust. I won't cite any examples, but obviously neither sequences of flight control (or systems) inputs in a given flight situation, nor changes in aerodynamic loads resulting from particular inputs, are intuitively clear. At least, not to me.
I do resort to looking things up, as incomplete and unsatisfactory as such process may be. (However, I don't recommend just looking things up for persons who aren't attorneys who also find themselves lacking legal understanding.)
Answer: Yes.
However, one of the cold, hard slaps-across-the-face that accompany being an SLF on this forum is that the actual aeronautical engineering discussions frequently leave me far behind in the not-comprehending dust. I won't cite any examples, but obviously neither sequences of flight control (or systems) inputs in a given flight situation, nor changes in aerodynamic loads resulting from particular inputs, are intuitively clear. At least, not to me.
I do resort to looking things up, as incomplete and unsatisfactory as such process may be. (However, I don't recommend just looking things up for persons who aren't attorneys who also find themselves lacking legal understanding.)
Boeing's business model hasn't changed. It is a system designed to enable richly rewarded senior management consequence free incompetency......
They are highly competent, they managed to fool about everybody monitoring/guarding the design (and maybe the manufacturing) of the B737 MAX. Including the oversight organizations FAA, EASA and several "follow the light" others around the globe.
The difference is, these highly competent senior (and maybe also the less senior as expected) managers did have a goal in mind, significantly deviating from US/EU and other area's laws, how the design of an airplane needs to take place as well, the idea of technicians/engineers, how airplanes should be designed/build.
This MAX debacle wasn't an accident (apart from the crashes itself), it was carefully planned inside Boeing, how this development should be done, in a way, to prioritize the profit over decent quality. Unfortunately, Murphy came around the corner and the whole origami game imploded/crashed, with nearly 350 lives lost, over USD 20B damage to Boeing and its stakeholders as well as a ruined reputation for both Boeing and the FAA, with the probable extension to the shattered USA reputation as a whole (though Trump helped enormously with that too).
This newly found issue, just shows, it's considered a normalcy to ad-hoc deviate from approved specifications, across the board. I'd say, this is just criminal intend.
So, a stiff lawyer's word towards (senior) management will do more than any engineer can accomplish.
A change of law, to make (senior) management by definition personally responsible for intentional deviations from a proper implementation of legal requirements around the airplane design/manufacturing, would help tremendously to solve these issues, ehhh, greed above suitable quality / follow the rules.
Seems to be, part of the mountings in the body at the tail end of the -7 and -8 are manufactured, deviating from the approved specifications. In plain English, I'd call that "hand-made", to save on special manufacturing tools/mechanisms.
In the past, other Boeing suppliers interpreted the prescribed CNC method as to be done "by handcraft" (in the end, the CNC machine input is, somehow, handmade too, so, just skip the CNS machine itself, saves money). I forgot, which part/airplane this was for. It does increase the manufacture tolerances (considerably).
In the past, other Boeing suppliers interpreted the prescribed CNC method as to be done "by handcraft" (in the end, the CNC machine input is, somehow, handmade too, so, just skip the CNS machine itself, saves money). I forgot, which part/airplane this was for. It does increase the manufacture tolerances (considerably).